Hmmm, I thought the original subject was innovations that have changed the Tour. Maybe others take it differently, but I took changing the Tour to mean to change who would win or could win as compared to before the innovation. Maybe not your own interpretation, but stiil very reasonable, I think.
So derailleurs are a big deal as the body type that could excel pounding big gears over the Galibier and spinning furiously on the flats is much different that that could take advantage of more variable gearing. And the radios and team cars definitely remove the advantage of an craftly rider and substitute the advantage of a crafty manager. But SIS/Ergo doesn't really change the outcome except the the extent that some riders had previously been particularly adept at shifting while sprinting out of the saddle, or others had been particularly clumsy at it. Now maybe that is the case, but if so, you'd think it would have occasionally been mentioned by commentators. I mean, I've never read that one of the foundations of Merckx's greatness was that he was really good at shifting while riding out of the saddle. Maybe he was, but if it was that important, you'd think someone would have commented on it.
You're right, I occasionally enjoy being the contrarian, but I don't see anything even remotely contrarian here.
BTW, as to being contrarian, I just acquired a Masi frame from a CR member so I guess that finally makes me part of the CR mainstream.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
Charles Andrews <chasds@mindspring.com> wrote: Jerry wrote:
You make my point perfectly for me. That each rider shifts as well as
the other 200 in the pack is exactly why the levers have no effect.
Every
one shifts more easily by the same amount, and the net change in the
compet
ition is zero. All that happens is that the level of skill required is
dec
reased. The same is true in Formula 1, but the difference, in my
opinion,
is that Formula 1 is as much about technology as it is about driver
skill,
while cycling, IMHO is about rider strength and skill, or should be.
>
***********
When you say things like this, you display a completely lack of understanding of what it means to compete in an athletic event. Or to compete in anything.
Ideally, the technology is *transparent.* In a perfect competition, the technology required for that competition would be utterly transparent. It would not get in the way of the athlete in any way. We should be measuring the strength and skill of a rider *as racer* not as technology manipulator.
When you make an argument like this, you argue for the flint-axe over the razor blade. It's ridiculous Jerry, and you should know better.
Not to mention the fact that it's very likely numerous bad crashes in mass sprints have been avoided in the last 10 years in countless races because of Ergo shifting.
I love my friction bikes. But were I racing today, I'd be Ergo all the way, and glad to have it..and not just because everyone else has it, Jerry. But because it lets me go faster, and it doesn't get in my way. It stays out of my way.
I know you enjoy the contrarian position Jerry. But it gets a little old after awhile. It really does.
Charles Andrews
Los Angeles